Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

He caused our country to be impoverished.

The population of Ireland in 1922 was 3.07m. Under DeValera it fell to 2.85m, 200,000 less. I don't think we would have lost that many in WW2.

So many people lost to emigration and died early because of poverty. It took until the early 1970s for the population to go back above 3m. All because of a stupid exclusionary nationalist ideology pursued by DeValera.

We cowardly ran away from the fight against the Nazis. A shameful time for Ireland.

It is 2021. How is Ireland's decision not to enter WW2 relative today when discussing a UI. If you are judging Ireland today for what they did in 1938 then you must also judge Germany today on what they did then. Get real.

And if you are using population growth as an indicator of a successful country then today in 2021 Ireland is the most successful in Europe.

blanch152

ittakestwo wrote: »

It is 2021. How is Ireland's decision not to enter WW2 relative today when discussing a UI. If you are judging Ireland today for what they did in 1938 then you must also judge Germany today on what they did then. Get real.

And if you are using population growth as an indicator of a successful country then today in 2021 Ireland is the most successful in Europe.

I agree that Ireland is among the most successful countries in Europe today. That doesn't advance the argument for unity either.

The problem with De Valera and Ireland back then is that the exclusionary nationalist republican ideology has barely shifted in the decades since. There are clear parallels with a lot of the stuff on this thread with De Valera. No harm pointing that out.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree that Ireland is among the most successful countries in Europe today. That doesn't advance the argument for unity either.

The problem with De Valera and Ireland back then is that the exclusionary nationalist republican ideology has barely shifted in the decades since. There are clear parallels with a lot of the stuff on this thread with De Valera. No harm pointing that out.

Clear parallels to Craig, Bonar Law, and the partitionist cant of Cosgrave and later FG too.
You are still fighting Civil War politics, the world has moved on and DeValera reappraised. He was many things and not all of them were bad.

Five Eighth

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree that Ireland is among the most successful countries in Europe today. That doesn't advance the argument for unity either.

The problem with De Valera and Ireland back then is that the exclusionary nationalist republican ideology has barely shifted in the decades since. There are clear parallels with a lot of the stuff on this thread with De Valera. No harm pointing that out.

I'm struggling to work out your total opposition to everything 'United Ireland'. The reality for unionists is that their 'never, never, never' mantra achieves absolutely nothing and they end up watching the world move on without their input. Most reasonable people recognise that we are talking about a process that may, if at all, lead to a united Ireland. First step is to tease out what is meant by a 'united Ireland'. This could take many years. The next step would entail an indication that a referendum in NI could lead to a majority voting for same. The Secretary of State for NI might then call a referendum. It is up to unionists to argue their point and make their precious union appealing to those who define themselves as Irish. To paraphase Albert Reynolds 'Whose afraid of democracy?'

jm08

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Like any nation with any backbone did. Instead, he led the inward cowardice of the country. Independence wasnt 20 years old and already, the so called brave revolutionaries and 'heroes' and no interest in standing with the truly good and courageous countries in the fight against evil. Probably the most shameful even in the history of Ireland. Northern Ireland in contrast, played their part.

You must have missed this memo from FGHQ PR:


Staying neutral in WWII was de Valera’s ‘finest hour’, says Taoiseach

Leo Varadkar praises Fianna Fáil figurehead as a man of courage and vision



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/staying-neutral-in-wwii-was-de-valera-s-finest-hour-says-taoiseach-1.3269167?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fstaying-neutral-in-wwii-was-de-valera-s-finest-hour-says-taoiseach-1.3269167

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree that Ireland is among the most successful countries in Europe today. That doesn't advance the argument for unity either.

The problem with De Valera and Ireland back then is that the exclusionary nationalist republican ideology has barely shifted in the decades since. There are clear parallels with a lot of the stuff on this thread with De Valera. No harm pointing that out.

What is ment by "exclusionary nationalist republican ideology" in the context of today? That nationalists want the nation of Irish people on Ireland to have an independent sovereign state? How is this different to other nations of people who have an independent sovereign country.

By the fact that Ireland is extremely pro Europe, would it not be inferred by that we aren't exclusionary. We are willing to have free movement of goods and services and share a currency with 300million+ other Europeans.

Sunny Disposition

Five Eighth wrote: »

I'm struggling to work out your total opposition to everything 'United Ireland'. The reality for unionists is that their 'never, never, never' mantra achieves absolutely nothing and they end up watching the world move on without their input. Most reasonable people recognise that we are talking about a process that may, if at all, lead to a united Ireland. First step is to tease out what is meant by a 'united Ireland'. This could take many years. The next step would entail an indication that a referendum in NI could lead to a majority voting for same. The Secretary of State for NI might then call a referendum. It is up to unionists to argue their point and make their precious union appealing to those who define themselves as Irish. To paraphase Albert Reynolds 'Whose afraid of democracy?'

There is bound to be a United Ireland, only because the North is such a fecking mess. It is mad how divided people are, religion is never far from the surface in any setting, it’s totally unhealthy. Now a United Ireland mightn’t solve everything but the people have to go for it or it’ll be a failure in another hundred years, it’s the only possibility of success.

Five Eighth

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

There is bound to be a United Ireland, only because the North is such a fecking mess. It is mad how divided people are, religion is never far from the surface in any setting, it’s totally unhealthy. Now a United Ireland mightn’t solve everything but the people have to go for it or it’ll be a failure in another hundred years, it’s the only possibility of success.

Unionists seem to me to exist in a time wrap. There are very few of their fellow British who give a fiddlers about them - none more so than their Tory masters. Boris de peffel is just the latest to again prove the words of their hero Carson. Unrequited love. How long before it begins to dawn on them that having a serious and substantial input into controlling their own destiny is best served by looking South?

blanch152

ittakestwo wrote: »

What is ment by "exclusionary nationalist republican ideology" in the context of today? That nationalists want the nation of Irish people on Ireland to have an independent sovereign state? How is this different to other nations of people who have an independent sovereign country.

By the fact that Ireland is extremely pro Europe, would it not be inferred by that we aren't exclusionary. We are willing to have free movement of goods and services and share a currency with 300million+ other Europeans.

Irish people in Ireland already have an independent sovereign state, I am living in it.

There aren't just Irish people on the island of Ireland. Yet, you post as if it this island only has Irish people. We don't, we have British people on this island as well. So straight away, your default, which you probably don't even recognise (consider it an unconscious bias) is to this exclusionary nationalist position that there should be a united Ireland.

FrancieBrady

The failure of NI writ large again tonight. A minefield now for everyone. The UK, us here in Ireland and the rest of the EU.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The failure of NI writ large again tonight. A minefield now for everyone. The UK, us here in Ireland and the rest of the EU.

No actually, it was the failure of the government to get its first choice Brexit outcome and settling for the SF option that was exposed tonight. If the UK was still in the CU and SM, this wouldn't be an issue.

Settling for second-best is never good.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No actually, it was the failure of the government to get its first choice Brexit outcome and settling for the SF option that was exposed tonight. If the UK was still in the CU and SM, this wouldn't be an issue.

Settling for second-best is never good.

So now you agree that SF convinced them...progress.

The UK choose to leave the CU SM...nobody else.

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

Irish people in Ireland already have an independent sovereign state, I am living in it.

There aren't just Irish people on the island of Ireland. Yet, you post as if it this island only has Irish people. We don't, we have British people on this island as well. So straight away, your default, which you probably don't even recognise (consider it an unconscious bias) is to this exclusionary nationalist position that there should be a united Ireland.

Not at all. I know there is also a nation of British people in Ireland.

But for a nationalist in NI who wants to live in an independent sovereign UI. How is that different from a British person who wants NI to stay part of the UK. If you are calling nationalist exclusionary why aren't unionists then also exclusionary?

blanch152

ittakestwo wrote: »

Not at all. I know there is also a nation of British people in Ireland.

But for a nationalist in NI who wants to live in an independent sovereign UI. How is that different from a British person who wants NI to stay part of the UK. If you are calling nationalist exclusionary why aren't unionists then also exclusionary?

Well, the difference is that the GFA allows the expression of the Irish identity within the UK state.

It is not dependent on a united Ireland.

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, the difference is that the GFA allows the expression of the Irish identity within the UK state.

It is not dependent on a united Ireland.

And do you think in the case of a UI there wont be a British identity in Ireland. As discussed a few pages back anybody born in NI can identify as British for the rest of their lives regardless of UI. If either Ireland or the UK don't honour that they are breaking the GFA.

Capt'n Midnight

blanch152 wrote: »

We cowardly ran away from the fight against the Nazis. A shameful time for Ireland.

Other than providing cannon fodder and more targets for German Bombers how could we have helped more than we did by being neutral ?

Most of the island's manufacturing capability was still up north.

Conscription wasn't used in Ireland during WWI so it was never going to happen so soon after the war of independence and civil war. Besides anyone who wanted to work in the factories or join the UK military could.

FrancieBrady

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Other than providing cannon fodder and more targets for German Bombers how could we have helped more than we did by being neutral ?

Most of the island's manufacturing capability was still up north.

Conscription wasn't used in Ireland during WWI so it was never going to happen so soon after the war of independence and civil war. Besides anyone who wanted to work in the factories or join the UK military could.

Civil War Politics depends on hindsight from the moral high ground with both factions. The FG faction take these unnuanced potshots at DeValera's stance, forgetting that we had indeed paid a high price in the absolute needless obscenity of WW1 and in our own battle for independence and it's aftermath. Nobody knew how WW2 was going to pan out and the last thing we needed as a fledgling nation was it to be turned into another bloody theatre and collateral damage field.
Let the war mongers fight it out among themselves and well done Devalera IMO

McMurphy

If this pans out, it'll make for interesting viewing.


https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1356164084102782978?s=19

FrancieBrady

DUP support seems to be going to the TUV, which is not going to help the Unionist cause. I would have thought there would need to have been a big UUP gain to maintain the status quo.
Any experts on it here...could we see a SF/Alliance First and Deputy First Minister?

https://twitEdter.com/gavreilly/status/1356164084102782978/photo/1

Snap McMurphy!

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

DUP support seems to be going to the TUV, which is not going to help the Unionist cause. I would have thought there would need to have been a big UUP gain to maintain the status quo.
Any experts on it here...could we see a SF/Alliance First and Deputy First Minister?

https://twitEdter.com/gavreilly/status/1356164084102782978/photo/1

Snap McMurphy!

Sinn Fein plus SDLP at only 37%. A very very long way short of a nationalist majority.

With the increase in vote for the TUV, this represents a worrying tend to the extremes.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Sinn Fein plus SDLP at only 37%. A very very long way short of a nationalist majority.

With the increase in vote for the TUV, this represents a worrying tend to the extremes.

If you are claiming that all of the Alliance vote is pro UK, which I highly doubt.

There is only one side in movement towards the extremes blanch. The side partitionists will be on.

Fionn1952

FrancieBrady wrote: »

DUP support seems to be going to the TUV, which is not going to help the Unionist cause. I would have thought there would need to have been a big UUP gain to maintain the status quo.
Any experts on it here...could we see a SF/Alliance First and Deputy First Minister?

https://twitEdter.com/gavreilly/status/1356164084102782978/photo/1

Snap McMurphy!

Alliance would have to designate as a Unionist party to take the DFM seat. I can't see it happening.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Alliance would have to designate as a Unionist party to take the DFM seat. I can't see it happening.

Yeh, forgot that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

DUP support seems to be going to the TUV, which is not going to help the Unionist cause. I would have thought there would need to have been a big UUP gain to maintain the status quo.
Any experts on it here...could we see a SF/Alliance First and Deputy First Minister?

https://twitEdter.com/gavreilly/status/1356164084102782978/photo/1

Snap McMurphy!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you are claiming that all of the Alliance vote is pro UK, which I highly doubt.

There is only one side in movement towards the extremes blanch. The side partitionists will be on.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Alliance would have to designate as a Unionist party to take the DFM seat. I can't see it happening.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, forgot that.

You were proclaiming that Alliance weren't just unionists only a couple of posts earlier.

At 37% joint vote for SF and SDLP, there isn't a chance of a SoS calling a border poll. In fact, given the weekend developments, and MM speaking about the need to reassure unionists, a border poll is moving further away.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You were proclaiming that Alliance weren't just unionists only a couple of posts earlier.

At 37% joint vote for SF and SDLP, there isn't a chance of a SoS calling a border poll. In fact, given the weekend developments, and MM speaking about the need to reassure unionists, a border poll is moving further away.

The SoS can call a poll whenever he/she wants. You are expressing an opinion...nothing more.
My opinion is that Micheál's position is untenable and becoming increasingly so. The weekend has shown that volatility is not going away on this island. And Unionism is fracturing anyway in their own internal coming to terms with the reality of what the Irish Sea border and betrayal of Westminster means for them.

I said this before - the future for politicians in Unionism is negotiating a good deal for themselves in a UI, sooner or later a Unionist is going to make that play and my suspicion is it will be the Unionists in the Alliance party. Former Unionists politicians have made the play, only a matter of time until a current Unionist politician does.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

You were proclaiming that Alliance weren't just unionists only a couple of posts earlier.

At 37% joint vote for SF and SDLP, there isn't a chance of a SoS calling a border poll. In fact, given the weekend developments, and MM speaking about the need to reassure unionists, a border poll is moving further away.

At under 50% voting for Nationalist parties and under 50% voting for Unionist parties, it is clear that the decision on Unification or remaining part of the Union will be made by the middle ground.....the same as before.

The SOS will call a border poll whenever it suits the British government. They could easily point to the 37% and use that as justification to reject calls, or they could look at a Nationalist First Minister for the first time and use that as a justification for proceeding. As usual for a Tory government, they'll make that call based on what suits them best, not the people of NI.

For the record, I think a border poll at this point in time would be premature in terms of support and irresponsible given the pandemic.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

At under 50% voting for Nationalist parties and under 50% voting for Unionist parties, it is clear that the decision on Unification or remaining part of the Union will be made by the middle ground.....the same as before.

The SOS will call a border poll whenever it suits the British government. They could easily point to the 37% and use that as justification to reject calls, or they could look at a Nationalist First Minister for the first time and use that as a justification for proceeding. As usual for a Tory government, they'll make that call based on what suits them best, not the people of NI.

For the record, I think a border poll at this point in time would be premature in terms of support and irresponsible given the pandemic.

The responsible thing to do would be to say, a border poll will happen in two to three years and allow proper discussion and planning.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The responsible thing to do would be to say, a border poll will happen in two to three years and allow proper discussion and planning.

The responsible thing to do would be to say that it is not likely to pass at the moment or in the foreseeable future, so there is no prospect of a border poll in the near term. However, a platform should be provided for the advocates of an immediate border poll to put forward their ideas, have them examined and costed, across the wide range of areas such as education, health, public service, social welfare and taxation. To date, all we have had from them is nonsesne. If they are capable of using this platform for public debate, they should be able to win hearts and minds around.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The responsible thing to do would be to say that it is not likely to pass at the moment or in the foreseeable future, so there is no prospect of a border poll in the near term. However, a platform should be provided for the advocates of an immediate border poll to put forward their ideas, have them examined and costed, across the wide range of areas such as education, health, public service, social welfare and taxation. To date, all we have had from them is nonsesne. If they are capable of using this platform for public debate, they should be able to win hearts and minds around.

Who would be the 'advocates of an immediate border poll'?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who would be the 'advocates of an immediate border poll'?

Look around you, who are the people advocating for an immediate border poll?

Most are saying it isn't time. Give the stage to those who say this is wrong and that we should have one now, and they will either take enough rope to hang themselves or win hearts and minds.

If they are not up to the challenge, that is its own answer.